Hi
This may be in the wrong room but I am sure someone will let me know if it is.
I am interested in why over the years when I have devised roulette systems they have often got off to spectacular starts only to then hit a long downward run and end up losing money. What I don't understand about this is the following. If roulette is genuinely completely random and therefore in theory anything is possible, why is it that when you have a really good run and may be run up several hundreds of pounds profit and then hit the losing streak and lose it all, why is it that you then don't at some point have a repeat of the really good run that you had before and start to gain profit again. My current self designed system (I am aware that all systems fail  ) which has a basic unit bet of 10p made me £800 profit in the space of 39 days and 1700 sessions and then it started the inevitable downward run which it is still on. Currently I am on day 64 and session 3669 but I am still up by £218. But my question is why does this downward run seem to go on for ages and why do I not have a repeat of the spectacular upwards run I had in the first 1700 sessions. Surely if it is completely random that should be possible. But experience has taught me over 25+ years that it won't and I will end up in a negative balance. Any ideas why this is would be really helpful as I am struggling to understand it. Thanks Mike

See roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/ which explains in plain language how roulette can and cannot be beaten, and why.

Why does what you described happen? It's an illusion. You continue playing with a "working" system, until it fails. Then you wonder why. Like what changed? What are you missing? Been there done that. Took me years to pull my head out my ass.

Thanks Steve for taking the time to reply. I would really welcome some other thoughts please so if anyone is reading the post please do give me your thoughts thanks Mike

It is the way system are found and created.

A system is detected (mostly not theoretically designed) when it is working.

e.g. you see that after Red there is always a Black.
so you create a system on that, add some progression and it works.

What you didn´t see and notice: Your is found because there is just a sequence that makes it work.
As soon as the sequence changes your system dooms.

Don´t create a system because you see something like a pattern or repeating patterns.

As I said years ago: Someone finds a system, tests it until x% plus and goes to a casino and busts.
Nobody tests a system until it failed 57% and goes then to a casino and plays it.
The probability that that pattern changes to win is higher than the winning one to continue.

Hi Winkel

Thanks for that. We are getting closer to what I was seeking now.
What I still don't understand is if this is all completely random and in theory anything is possible surely it must be possible that sometimes you will have a really great run and win lots then have a really bad run and maybe lose all your gains and more but.............and here is the bit I am trying to get at, surely it is also possible that after this you get another really good run with lots of profit. That is the bit I have never seen happen. Mike

everything comes in and out of sync with what has to happen...this is what you are experiencing...favourable then non favourable ...variance most call it...patterns to some....voodoo to others...magic to the unbelievers .. 

at the end of the day look at what you are doing closely....roulette is DYNAMIC...not static....but one can,t work on its own without the other..both are dependent on each other..sounds to me you have to work out the other half of what you need....
   

Quote from: Steve on Feb 07, 06:36 PM 2023See roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/ which explains in plain language how roulette can and cannot be beaten, and why.

laughable..

Quote from: Steve on Feb 07, 06:36 PM 2023What are you missing?

explained above

Quote from: Steve on Feb 07, 06:36 PM 2023Took me years to pull my head out my ass.

to be fair...i thought it was still in there

You lost because of unfair payout 1+35, it should be 1+36 to be fair and you can't change the rules of payout in roulette, house always wins your 2 7%

Quote from: MumboJumbo on Feb 11, 07:04 AM 2023ou lost because of unfair payout 1+35, it should be 1+36 to be fair and you can't change the rules of payout in roulette, house always wins your 2 7%

ok i,ll pose this question to you...show me a profitable system without the house edge....ie no zero ..lets take a look..

even steve will agree its about accuracy of bets placed...his is computers ...mine isn,t...both lead to the same conclusion

Quote from: 6th-sense on Feb 09, 03:58 PM 2023roulette is DYNAMIC

This makes it invulnerable to systems.

Thank you 6th Sense for your replies appreciated and one of them particularly made me smile 

Quote from: Person S on Feb 13, 04:51 PM 2023This makes it invulnerable to systems.

correct

Quote from: OrdnaryGuy on Feb 14, 12:23 AM 2023Thank you 6th Sense for your replies appreciated and one of them particularly made me smile 

your welcome

Quote from: OrdnaryGuy on Feb 07, 04:51 AM 2023But experience has taught me over 25+ years that it won't and I will end up in a negative balance. Any ideas why this is would be really helpful as I am struggling to understand it. Thanks Mike

If you have the mindset that your system will ultimately fail then this is exactly what you will get, a failing system.
You need to have confidence, expect it to win and not to be surprised when it does.
Our thoughts shape our reality even if the Maths say otherwise.

Absolutely Klausy I'm glad you reminded me about the law of attraction and 'the secret'

It's simple. People quickly forget all the many, many system ideas they try that fail quickly or even immediately. Yet they prolong testing and tweaking those system ideas that win in the first instance, sometimes for long time.

That's why you think you see a great start then a destroying downward spiral all the time, but in reality it's not all the time. In fact not even most the time.

There's nothing wrong with that. Simply, that's how it's done. I wonder how many good and/or promising ideas went in the trash because they lost in the beggining?